Disposed

Joy Joseph v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Sept 2019Bail Appl./6184/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the petitioners plea for anticipatory bail in an assault case involving grievous hurt. Instead of granting bail immediately, the Court directed the petitioner to surrender to the investigating officer by a specified date for interrogation before being produced before a Magistrate for final bail consideration.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail refused. Directions to surrender before I.O. by Oct 1, 2019, cooperate with interrogation, and produce before Magistrate for final bail consideration.

Joy Joseph Vs the State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 27TH BHADRA, 1941

¶5

BAIL APPL.NO.6184 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.470/2019 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

JOY JOSEPH, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH VARKEY, RESIDING AT MULANGATTIL HOUSE, KUTTANAM, KANHIRAPOYIL POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.T.MADHU, SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031

¶12

SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶15

B.A. No. 6184 of 2019

¶16

Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2019

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.470/2019 of Hosdurg Police Station, which was initially registered for offences punishable under Secs.324 & 506(ii) of the IPC on the basis of FIS given by the defacto complainant/injured on 22.7.2019 at about 9.10 pm, in respect of the alleged incidents which have happened on 19.7.2019 at about 4 pm.

¶19

The prosecution case in short is that, earlier the defacto complainant's father was threatened by the petitioner inasmuch as the father was gazing goats in the property owned by one Thankachan, who is no more, and at that time, the petitioner had attempted to assault the defacto complainant's father with a knife which was prevented by the defacto complainant on his intervention, and out of said animosity on 19.7.2019 at about 4 pm the petitioner had attempted to stab the defacto complainant's father with a knife which was prevented by the defacto complainant, which resulted in

¶20

B.A. No. 6184 of 2019

¶21

..3..

¶22

the defacto complainant sustaining incised wound on his palm. Though the offences initially alleged in the crime were those under Secs.324 & 506(ii) of the IPC, the Police after investigation had added the offence as per Sec.326 of the IPC, as the defacto complainant was continuously treated on account of the injury for a period of 24 days.

¶23

It is pointed out by the learned Prosecutor that, in view of the fact that the defacto complainant had to be hospitalized for about 24 days on account of injuries suffered in this case, it would satisfy the definition of Clause 8thly of Sec.320 of the IPC (grievous hurt) and would also satisfy the requirements of Sec.326 of the IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurts by dangerous weapons and means).

¶24

Sri.T.Madhu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are false and fabricated, and further that this Court may order to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to any stringent conditions.

¶25

Learned Prosecutor has seriously opposed the grant of bail and has pointed out that the allegations are very serious and that the wound certificate and treatment records would clearly show that

¶26

..4..

¶27

B.A. No. 6184 of 2019

¶28

the ingredients of Sec.326 r/w Sec.320 of the IPC are disclosed in this case, and would certificate would show that the injured has sustained serious incised wound on his palm on account of the attack made by the petitioner.

¶29

After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to take the view that this case is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in the matter of grant of anticipatory bail.

¶30

However, the counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner would voluntarily surrender before the Investigating Officer concerned without any further delay, so that his bail application could be considered and decided by the competent Magistrate concerned on the same day of his production.

¶31

Taking note of the limited submission made on behalf of the petitioner, the following directions and orders are passed.

¶32

i. The petitioner will immediately surrender before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) in relation to the instant Crime No.470/2019 of Hosdurg Police Station for interrogation purposes without any further delay at any rate at 9 am on any day on or before 1.10.2019 or within such time limit that may be extended by the I.O. as he deems fit and proper.

¶33

..5..

¶34

B.A. No. 6184 of 2019

¶35

ii. The petitioner will fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the conduct of the above interrogation process.

¶36

iii. After the interrogation process is over, the Investigating Officer will produce the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned in relation to this crime, and thereupon the said Court will consider and pass orders on the bail application of the petitioner on the same day of his production, and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner's counsel and the learned Prosecutor, and after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶37

It is further made clear that, it is within the domain of the learned Magistrate to consider the bail application of the petitioner after hearing both sides, and after taking due note of the facts and attendant circumstances in this case.

¶38

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand finally disposed of.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶41

MMG

Joy Joseph v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy Joseph v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Sasidharan, Vs Geetha

Binu Balan.K.C Vs State of Kerala

Vimal M.Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Shajitha Vs State of Kerala

Mansoor Babu Vs the State of Kerala

Aboobacker.a.C Vs State of Kerala